Evidence for God from Science

Jbuza wrote:Bgood Wrote
Why is that if DNA is stable? What is causing these variations???

I am not proposing that offspring are clones of their parents. Neither am I arguing against the known fact that individuals have unique recombination of DNA. What I have stated is that there is stable information in the DNA that causes offspring to be the same kind as the parent. Observations show this.

How if separate breeding groups are distinct?
How does this prove DNA's stability?
What observations?

What is same kind? Is it only because they can interbreed? What if one population's variation is not it's fur coloring or even its skull to body ration, but gestation period or mating season. Then they won't mate anymore.

If I bred Chihuahua's for those which have consistently shorter gestation periods, they will no longer be able to mother a mix with another breed.
-------------------------

Jbuza wrote:Bgood
You're correct there are more variations of teeth than there are variations of wires. Thus nullifying your analogy.
Right sorry let me rephrase it would be more difficult to identify what a dinosaur looked like based on a tooth or a few bone fragments than it would be to identify what a car looked like based on a piece of wire.

Sorry this is incorrect, it is difficult yes, however dentition can be ascribed to a family of animals with success due to comparative analysis.
We do have full skulls of T-rex's. If we find a tooth similar to one found in this skull we can be pretty certain it belongs to a carnivorous Dinosaur.
Comparative analysis allows us to use growth patterns, nerve and blood vessel channels, shape, and size to differentiate among the different classes.
-------------------------

Jbuza wrote:Bgood
Sorry, what excerpt, and what link??

Whoops sorry it was in the flood and ark thread
Revueltosaurus skeleton unearthed at Petrified Forest upsets dinosaur tale
June 24, 2005

The animal, one ofmany creatures from the Late Triassic known only from their teeth, was thought to be an ancestor of the plant-eating ornithischian dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Triceratops, which roamed the world millions of years later in the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.

The fact that this presumed dinosaur, Revueltosaurus callenderi, is instead a crocodile ancestor does not merely disappoint rockhounds, who sell the abundant teeth as “dinosaur teeth,” but it also throws into question the identity of other presumed dinosaur ancestors known only from teeth, which includes all Late Triassic ornithischians outside South America.

Archosaurs are thought to be the stock from which dinosaurs arose, therefore the mistake was innocent. However a correction was made and you can see how science corrects and reevaluates itself when necessary.

Jbuza wrote:“Because the teeth look like those we know from herbivorous ornithischians, people assigned them to the dinosaurs,” said Randall Irmis, a graduate student in the Department of Integrative Biology and the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley. “We think we've shown that you can't rely on the dentition to determine what is an early dinosaur, which casts doubt on all the ornithischians from the Triassic of North America.”
//www.brightsurf.com/news/headlines/view. ... leID=20248

Again this only puts into question the origin of Ornithischians, this is the scientific process.

-------------------

Jbuza wrote:Bgood
Just how did they come to the conclusion that it was a crocodile then? Also are you saying that scientists should be infallible?
Or are you saying that they should not have corrected a mistake?
How were they able to determine that it was a crocodile tooth?

I am saying that identifying dinosaurs based on a tooth or bone are even a few bone fragments certianly isn't convincing evidence.

No, incorrect early dinosaur teeth are hard to distinguish from archasaur teeth. Perhaps due to the fact that evolution has just started the differentiation process.

The lesson was not that teeth alone is inconvincing evidence.
Case in point it was the teeth alone which led them to the conclusion that they belonged to a crocodile ancestor!
The lesson is that new findings will always force scientists to adjust and refine their theories.
---------------------

Jbuza wrote:

Are you going to tell me the name or do I ask a third time in vain?
Similar teeth does not a horse make.
----------------------

Family Eohippus

wonderful.

Actually, I wasn't joking. The platypus has venom distribution abilities (a reptilian characteristic). I have found a transitional form.

Mystical wrote:Actually, I wasn't joking. The platypus has venom distribution abilities (a reptilian characteristic). I have found a transitional form.

Venom distribution is not a trait unique to reptiles.

Also the platypus is not the only venemous mammal, several species of shrews as well as the Solenodon are venomous as well.

Also in the case of the Platypus, the mechanism for injection is quite different than that of snakes.
Only the male platupus, possesses calcaneus spurs on each hind limb which is used to inject the venom.
The anatomy of the venom gland and the ducts by which the venom is expelled is also unique.
The venom itself works as a vasodialator, in contrast most snake venoms are mainly neurotoxins, anti-coagulants, or corrosive substances (resulting in tissue damage around the wound).

Phylogeny is not determined by similarities in individual traits but by overall relation.

The dentition, and mammary glands alone separate the platypus from reptiles.

The egg laying, and cervical ribs (ribs in the neck), also separates the platypus from all other mammals.

At best you have a descendant of an order of mammals which no longer exists.

This order being a transition between ancient mammal like reptiles and modern mammals.

The cervical ribs, and egg laying, and skull formation are similar to that of therapsid(mammal like reptiles) fossils.

Jbuza wrote:This is the same group that drew dinosaurs based on teeth from a subspecies of crocodile, perhaps you skipped the link, or just dismissed the excerpt.

i'm sorry, would you like me to compare you to the televangelists on tv spouting bs just so they can get a few bucks from some poor, uninformed schmuck? scientists are not all like the stereotypes you make them out to be. the ones you use constantly in your examples are a small minority that are just not as talented, or not as moral, as most of the others who are more dedicated to their work. you can see examples of this in every group of people, not just scientists or christians. there are smart people and there are less smart people. and then there are smart but uniformed people and less smart, but more informed people. and there are those who are more in tune with humanity and there are those who are more self-centered.

Jbuza wrote:What I have stated is that there is stable information in the DNA that causes offspring to be the same kind as the parent. Observations show this.

what is the definition of being the "same kind"? what makes or breaks being the same kind of animal?

Jbuza wrote:Right sorry let me rephrase it would be more difficult to identify what a dinosaur looked like based on a tooth or a few bone fragments than it would be to identify what a car looked like based on a piece of wire.

yes, it would be more difficult, but it is not impossible. with enough foreknowledge, anything can be figured out. what scientists do today is just modeling. most of them really make no absolute claims, just a detailed description of a very good possibility. sometimes they are wrong, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is inherently wrong.

Jbuza wrote:I am saying that identifying dinosaurs based on a tooth or bone are even a few bone fragments certianly isn't convincing evidence.

it isnt convincing evidence to you because you don't believe in evolution.

I really am enjoying the discourse on the platypus, and like it's cousin, the echidna, I can't find anything that isn't immediately contradicted by some other study/journal/periodical.

I think no one has the decisive answer on this order of creature. Isolationist evolution perhaps? Obviously the rest of the ancestors of these creatures, order/phylum, have long since passed, but even there, there is no agreement on what "exactly" constituted an "ancestor".

Good work on the conundrums today, very interesting.

Mastriani wrote:I really am enjoying the discourse on the platypus, and like it's cousin, the echidna, I can't find anything that isn't immediately contradicted by some other study/journal/periodical.

I think no one has the decisive answer on this order of creature. Isolationist evolution perhaps? Obviously the rest of the ancestors of these creatures, order/phylum, have long since passed, but even there, there is no agreement on what "exactly" constituted an "ancestor".

Good work on the conundrums today, very interesting.

its extremely hard to find evidence for the variety of species because of the process that creates fossils. only on rare occasions and under the right conditions does a fossil form. either the fossilization must occur quickly, or the geological area must not be a very active and violent one. most of the bones of past animals were probably devoured by scavengers and bacteria, or broken up by geological processes like volcanoes or faultlines.

Zenith wrote:

Jbuza wrote:This is the same group that drew dinosaurs based on teeth from a subspecies of crocodile, perhaps you skipped the link, or just dismissed the excerpt.

i'm sorry, would you like me to compare you to the televangelists on tv spouting bs just so they can get a few bucks from some poor, uninformed schmuck? scientists are not all like the stereotypes you make them out to be. the ones you use constantly in your examples are a small minority that are just not as talented, or not as moral, as most of the others who are more dedicated to their work. you can see examples of this in every group of people, not just scientists or christians. there are smart people and there are less smart people. and then there are smart but uniformed people and less smart, but more informed people. and there are those who are more in tune with humanity and there are those who are more self-centered.

Jbuza wrote:What I have stated is that there is stable information in the DNA that causes offspring to be the same kind as the parent. Observations show this.

what is the definition of being the "same kind"? what makes or breaks being the same kind of animal?

Jbuza wrote:Right sorry let me rephrase it would be more difficult to identify what a dinosaur looked like based on a tooth or a few bone fragments than it would be to identify what a car looked like based on a piece of wire.

yes, it would be more difficult, but it is not impossible. with enough foreknowledge, anything can be figured out. what scientists do today is just modeling. most of them really make no absolute claims, just a detailed description of a very good possibility. sometimes they are wrong, but that doesn't mean what they are doing is inherently wrong.

Jbuza wrote:I am saying that identifying dinosaurs based on a tooth or bone are even a few bone fragments certianly isn't convincing evidence.

it isnt convincing evidence to you because you don't believe in evolution.

Thnaks, that's great have a nice day.

"mutations and changes occur in every new generation, but only the ones that are advantageous or help the organism survive better will be passed on."

Deleterious mutuations are absolutely passed on to their offspring. I learned that in my Freshman College Biology Class. The reason that you state this is because Neo-Darwinism requires fortuitous mutuations to accumulate to cross species lines. Infact, this has been counter to observation in the laboratory. This is why Robert Shapiro and Lynn Margulius and many others are declaring Neo-Darwinism dead and they are looking for another approach like evo-devo. Also, beneficial mutuaions are incredibly rare and they have never been observed to create more information...never.

Dan

aa118816 wrote:"mutations and changes occur in every new generation, but only the ones that are advantageous or help the organism survive better will be passed on."

Don't remember every saying that. I think you will find that was from Zenith.

aa118816 wrote: Deleterious mutuations are absolutely passed on to their offspring.

I would say may be or could be

aa118816 wrote: Also, beneficial mutuaions are incredibly rare and they have never been observed to create more information...never.

I completely agree.

aa118816 wrote:"mutations and changes occur in every new generation, but only the ones that are advantageous or help the organism survive better will be passed on."

Deleterious mutuations are absolutely passed on to their offspring. I learned that in my Freshman College Biology Class. The reason that you state this is because Neo-Darwinism requires fortuitous mutuations to accumulate to cross species lines. Infact, this has been counter to observation in the laboratory. This is why Robert Shapiro and Lynn Margulius and many others are declaring Neo-Darwinism dead and they are looking for another approach like evo-devo. Also, beneficial mutuaions are incredibly rare and they have never been observed to create more information...never.

Dan

i guess i worded that wrong. i didnt really mean that all detrimental mutations were not passed on. they are still passed on to the offspring, but because they are detrimental to the organism's survival, there is a much lower probability of them being passed on.

the 'new information' isnt really new information as much as it is a new combination of already present information. recombinations of genes before and during conception uses already present patterns in dna, but mutations are more arbitrary rearrangements of the dna. but i do agree that beneficial mutations are a lot more rare than benign or detrimental mutations.

Here's another transitional form (rabbit/squirrel):

What is it Anyway?

Too cute!

My sincere apologies Jbuza.

Zenith - Thanks for the reply and in fact, the projections of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations ranges from a low of 10K to one and a high of 10m to one. Macro evolution is mathematically impossible from a Neo-Darwinist standpoint. They may be teaching you this dated theory in school, but it is mathematically false.

Evo Devo is the theory that is going to start filtering down to college biology and eventually High School Biology. This is going to be the next theory that is pointed too as fact by the Darwinist establishment.

Dan

aa118816 wrote:My sincere apologies Jbuza.

Zenith - Thanks for the reply and in fact, the projections of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations ranges from a low of 10K to one and a high of 10m to one. Macro evolution is mathematically impossible from a Neo-Darwinist standpoint. They may be teaching you this dated theory in school, but it is mathematically false.

Evo Devo is the theory that is going to start filtering down to college biology and eventually High School Biology. This is going to be the next theory that is pointed too as fact by the Darwinist establishment.

Dan

It is nothing. Just when I read it I said hey wait I don't agree with that.

What is Evo Devo?

Google had the answer
evolutionary developmental biology
In essence, it's a marriage of the approaches of two groups of scientists—those who study how the genetic make-up of organisms has evolved between species over millions of years, and those who investigate the way that genes control the growth of individual living organisms from conception to maturity.
Researchers have found that genes are extraordinarily stable, even between species that evolved millions of years apart. Some genetic markers and chemical structures have survived fundamental changes in the physical appearance of species. The most famous is the hox gene sequence that controls the way the body develops—in essence, this was much the same in lowly organisms 700 million years ago as it is in humans today.
Studying these genes from both points of view—both evolution and development—helps researchers to understand how organisms today develop from egg to mature adult, and provides insights into the genetics of organisms like the dinosaurs that are known only from fossils. The fusion of the two approaches is predicted to result in many important discoveries.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-evo1.htm

aa118816 wrote:My sincere apologies Jbuza.

Zenith - Thanks for the reply and in fact, the projections of deleterious mutations to beneficial mutations ranges from a low of 10K to one and a high of 10m to one. Macro evolution is mathematically impossible from a Neo-Darwinist standpoint. They may be teaching you this dated theory in school, but it is mathematically false.

Evo Devo is the theory that is going to start filtering down to college biology and eventually High School Biology. This is going to be the next theory that is pointed too as fact by the Darwinist establishment.

Dan

i don't believe in macro evolution. i believe that all adaptation is through microevolution, but i believe that there is no limit to this adaptation. continuous small changes throughout generations will inevitably lead to distinct changes (only if you compare one generation to another generation thousands or millions of years later). the small changes add up. each generation is just so slightly different, like the difference between me and my father. but if you compare from many many generations ago, the differences are great.